> Kenneth Boyd wrote:> [CLIP]> That's why I count all money paid towards Social Security as totally> wasted. [Frankly, I don't expect the institution to survive unless the> retirement age is boosted to say, 100 years. That would reset the > survival rate to retirement to the design intentions, back in the> 1930's.]> ----> > Listen to this:> > =IF=>We raised retirement age to let's say 80 years> =then=> Only those with a life expectancy bigger than 80 would recieve> their well-earned pension and spend the rest of their lives peacefully> =then=> They would have more leisure to spend taking care of their> grand-children> =then=> The burden of taking care of their grand-children would be> smaller to their children> =then=> Their children would be capable of having more offsprings and\or> spend more time on their career and\or paying more attention to their> offsprings.> =then=> Those offsprings (the 80+'s grandchildren) would obtain a> dominant evolutionary position.> =then=> Possible genetic causes for long life expectancy would obtain a> dominant position> =then=> Average life expectancy would pass the 80> =then=> We'd raise retirement age to 90.> and so on.> > BUT> =IF=> Unemployed 80+s require extensive supervision of their children> =then=> Their children would be more busy taking care of them> =then=> Their children would have less resources to spend on their own> offsprings> =then=> Those offsprings would obtain an inferior evolutionary position> =then=> Forget it.> > How about that?> > Lior.

Gender asymmetry strikes!

[ASSUMING vaguely conventional family and legal structures]
It would take some effort [multi-generation natural selection or genetic
engineering] to boost menopause to 70 years of age [I'm sticking with my
100 cutoff quote], thus enabling children to require support for women
of that age.